Putting "love" in scare quotes when referring to gay relationships wasn't the only shennanigan CNSNews.com pulled on President Obama's inauguration speech. In a Jan. 21 article, Fred Lucas has decided he can read Obama's mind:

President Barack Obama seemed to reject entitlement reform in his second Inaugural address Monday, even saying Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security “free us to take the risks that make this country great.”

Praising Social Security does not equal rejecting any reform of the program, and Lucas does not explain how it does.

Taylor Rose is new to WorldNetDaily, but he's already picking up the Obama-hate that is so endemic there. Rose begins a Jan. 22 WND article this way:

Barack Obama probably is one of the most abortion-minded politicians Washington ever has seen, and under his watch pro-lifers have been hounded by the Department of Justice, Planned Parenthood tax funding has rocketed to $540 million and coming health care laws are going to force business leaders of faith to pay for abortifacients in violation of their religious rights.

Rose makes no effort to back up any of this, and his implication that federal money to Planned Parenthood is used for abortion is a lie.

Also note that Rose does not identify Obama as the president of the United States, which makes one wonder if he even recognizes Obama's election.

Rose is also picking up bad habits from his WND stablemate Bob Unruh by focusing only on anti-abortion activists and refusing to let any pro-choice activists respond.

Speaking of Unruh, he uses a Jan. 22 WND article to give a platform to right-wing activist Mathew Staver to spew that Obama is forcing Americans to fund "'a Hitler-kind of killing machine' through the hundreds of millions of federal taxpayer dollars given to Planned Parenthood." Like Rose, Unruh can't be bothered to explain that federal money to Planned Parenthood doesn't pay for abortion.

Rose is definitely learning the ways of WND. Unfortunately, they have nothing to do with responsible journalism.

Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter do the deed in a Jan. 15 article detailng an "exclusive interview" in which Keene is permitted to uncritically forward attacks on President Obama and his "rabid advisers" who are purportedly behind his alleged gun grab.

Meyers and Walter even got a second article out of the interview, in which Keene claims NRA membership is up afther the Newtown massacare "because the Obama administration’s gun control efforts are .scaring people." Meyers and Walter apparently never considered that the NRA's anti-Obama scare tactics might be what's actually scaring people.

Again and again, we see all of the fallacies and delusions of Western “leaders” and the media elite crumble in the face of reality.

It was revealed Monday that a “Canadian” was in charge of the jihadist operations at the Algerian gas plant. Of course, this jihadist was no more Canadian than Osama bin Laden was. As Robert Spencer says of him and another Canadian reportedly involved in the jihad massacre: “They most likely didn’t consider themselves Canadians. They no doubt thought of themselves as members of the global, supranational umma.”

But in Canada he was almost certainly assumed to be a “moderate.” And so were the gas plant employees who were in on the jihad plot.

What does this tell us about “moderates”? How do we tell the players? How do we know which of our co-workers and neighbors aren’t bloody jihadists in the making? Remember: Anwar Awlaki, the imam to the 9/11 Muslim terrorists (who assisted in the purchase of their airplane tickets), was the go-to imam the media consulted (the “moderate” imam) for all things Islam right after 9/11. And so did the 9/11 hijackers, for “spiritual guidance.”

[...]

Today’s moderate is tomorrow’s mass murderer. What’s the difference? Good PR and a lot of propaganda served as hot as apple pie by a jihad-aligned media.

Geller also claims that "over 80 percent of the mosques in America teach, advance and promote jihad," something only Muslim-haters like Geller believe.

For the second time this month, CNS has made a "news" article out of a Jay Leno joke. From the Jan. 23 article by Eric Scheiner:

Tonight Show host Jay Leno took a jab at the attendance levels for President Barack Obama’s second inauguration.

“On the news they made a big deal out of the fact that four years ago there were twice as many people at his first inauguration as there was at this one, “ Leno said on Tuesday night’s broadcast, “Well, yeah, that was because four years ago twice as many people could afford to stay in hotels.”

According to USA Today and other news reports, attendance was significantly lower for Monday’s inaugural ceremonies than for the inauguration in 2009.

Yes, that's a "news" story. Apparently, CNS has stopped caring about journalism and just wants to do right-wing stenography.

Colin Flaherty Can't Find A Black Mob To Blame, But Does So AnywayTopic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily's resident race-baiter, Colin Flaherty, is back again with yet another "black mob violence" article. Only he can't find a "black mob" to blame. But he does anyway.

This time, Flaherty has latched onto a case in which the city of Chicago has agreed to pay millions to the family of a white woman who had been taken into custody for causing a disturbance at an airport but later released -- despite exhibiting signs of mental illness -- into a crime-infested black neighborhood, where she was sexually assaulted and fell from a 7th-story window, leaving her incapacitated.

Because the victim is white and her alleged perpetrators are black, Flaherty stops his investigation right there and declares this "racial violence" even though he offers no evidence that race was a driving factor behind any of the events that occurred.

But who needs facts when there's race-baiting to be done? Not Colin Flaherty.

Matthew Balan uses a Jan. 17 Media Research Center item to defend the honor of National Rifle Association president David Keene from CBS' Norah O'Donnell, who purportedly "barely contained her contempt" for him. Balan went on to complain that O'Donnell "also failed to mention a new online video game that lets users simulate assassinating Keene."

Just one problem with that: It's a hoax.

As Salon reported the day before Balan's item was published, this "online video game" is in reality a slapped-together demo created for the express purpose of trolling right-wingers. The MRC is just one of many right-wing outlets that fell for it.

Balan should considered himself trolled. But will he correct the record and apologize for taking the bait? we shall see.

WorldNetDaily has been in a uproar over editor Joseph Farah being disinvited from an inauguration day prayer breakfast -- until he was re-invited as prayer breakfast organizer Rev. Merrie Turner abruptly repudiated what she told Media Matters (disclosure: my employer) about Farah's involvement. WND, meanwhile, made no effort to hold Turner accountable for her changing stories.

So the big day came and went -- and Farah was a no-show.

Right Wing Watch reports that most of the special guests -- including Pat Robertson, Michele Bachmann and Pat Boone as well as Farah -- failed to attend, though "Robertson, Farah, and Pat Boone sent messages that were read out loud." Among those who did show up was Wiley Drake, a birther who has prayed for President Obama's death.

WND's article on the breakfast, meanwhile, is curiously silent on Farah's failure to attend or the controversy it tried to manufacture about his invitation. Instead, the unbylined article documents the words of Jonathan Cahn, "author of 'The Harbinger' – the startling New York Times bestseller that suggests the U.S. is in the shadow of judgment from God for its rejection of Him." Farah is mentioned only once in the article, as the producer of a video accompanying Cahn's book.

Jill Stanek's Empty Words On Anti-Abortion Activists And The Children Of Their EnemiesTopic: NewsBusters

In a Jan. 20 NewsBusters post, anti-abortion activist Jill Stanek complains that a new real-housewives reality show includes the daughter of an abortion doctor, then oddly says, "We in the pro-life movement don’t believe children should be punished for the sins of their fathers."

As Stanek's attack shows, that's simply not true. Additionally, given one recent chance Stanek had to denounce targeting children of an anti-abortion activist's enemy, she punted.

Last year, anti-abortion activists started handing out fliers depicting the landlord of an abortion clinic as akin to Nazis. Stanek wrote that she was asked to condemn it, "but I couldn’t. I responded by asking what was inaccurate about it."

That was followed by anti-abortion protesters picketing the school that the landlord's 11-year-old daughter attends. Rather than condemn such behavior -- as her NewsBusters statement suggests she would -- Stanek instead expressed no opinion and threw the question out to her readers: "Do you think involving the children of either abortion proponents or opponents is fair game?"

It seems that when it actually comes down to proving that she believes that children of their targets shouldn't be targeted, Stanek can't back up her words.

A Jan. 16 WND article by Bob Unruh details Wenzel poll results claiming that 73 percent of respondents said that they didn't mind that state and local governments were acquiring "military-style equipment and armaments." Unruh then quotes Wenzel offering up his own invented interpretation of the results:

“This is perhaps because, the survey shows, a wide majority of Americans doubt their local or state police would ever engage in the imposition of some sort of martial law. Such imposition would severely restrict personal freedoms, but 59 percent said they just don’t think such a thing would happen here in America,” he continued.

“That is largely because 51 percent said they cannot conceive of any circumstances or actions by government that would so cause them to agree it is time for a citizen revolution against the government. Just 18 percent said they could conceive of something the government could do to cause them to want to revolt.

“This is a testament to the longstanding stability that the country has known, but also spells a risk of tyranny. If government leaders know the citizenry is unwilling to revolt and they know their law enforcement agencies are well-equipped to put down any uprising with military-style weaponry, one could argue that those leaders might be tempted to impose tyranny on the country in some form or another,” he said.

The next day, Unruh served up some more Wenzel results, this time claiming that "one in seven Americans believes that the nation eventually will be ruled by a dictator." But the questions are decidedly leading:

In world history, whenever a democratic society similar to ours has failed, it has been followed by a dictatorship – usually a brutal dictatorship. If the current American federal government were to fail, what do you think would be the most likely outcome?

Some opinion leaders in America today say the current federal government of the United States is so badly in debt and is so bloated as a dysfunctional bureaucracy, and faces such grave threats from foreign enemies, that it is unlikely to last much longer. How likely do you think it is that our national government will collapse during your lifetime from the combination of these serious problems facing the country?

How likely do you think it is that the country will collapse during the next 20 years?

How likely do you think it is that the country will collapse during the next 10 years?

“At the beginning of a second presidential term, you generally expect the country to be in full-bore optimism, in part as an endorsement of the re-elected president and in part a reflection of the nation settled in its current course,” said Fritz Wenzel, president of his strategies organization.

“We saw that with Reagan, we saw that with Clinton, and we saw that with George W. Bush. But that is not what we find with Obama,” he said.

“The country is already in full-on depression, as just 34 percent said they think things in America are headed in the right direction. Even among Democrats, just 62 percent said they think things are headed in the right direction, an abysmal figure for the president’s own fellow party members.”

He continued: “There is just no sugar-coating this – America may have liked Obama more than Romney, but they have no confidence in his leadership. This spells nothing but tough sledding for the nation over the next four years. Politically, it’s bound to get very ugly as the nation continues in a downward spiral and leaders in Washington point fingers across the political aisle. Forget solutions and reform for the next four years – the only thing coming from Washington will be blame for our sorry condition. This survey finding reflects that the nation is in the process of giving up hope.”

Wenzel somehow manages to extrapolate all of that from a single poll finding that 34 percent of respondents say the country is moving in the wrong direction.

A particularly nasty example of the Media Research Center's anti-gay agenda pops up in a Jan. 21 CNSNews.com article by editor in chief Terry Jeffrey, who puts "love" in scare quotes when referring to gays:

President Barack Obama opened his second inaugural address by quoting the statement from the preamble to the Declaration of Independence that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."

He then went on to say that if men were in fact created equal, then homosexual “love” must be equal as well.

[...]

A bit later in his speech, Obama returned to the theme of God creating all men equal, and this time tied it directly to his belief that the “law” should extend equal treatment to “the love” of homosexuals.

Jeffrey does not explain why "love" is in scare quotes, or why he apparently doesn't believe that homosexuals can love each other.

In his Jan. 20 WorldNetDaily column, Rick Santorum complained that President Obama issued "23 executive orders to be signed by the president to attempt to address gun violence in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy. Once again, rather than respect the rule of law and the checks and balances in our system, President Obama is unilaterally implementing public policy without the normal process that involves legislation, debate and passage by a vote of Congress."

In fact, Obama did not sign "23 executive orders." As Slate's Dave Weigel details, Obama 23 executive actions on various issues connected to gun massacres and asked Congress to consider a few reform bills.

Santorum goes on to cite as evidence that Obama "has found ways to circumvent our system and impose his views and vision":

Two days after he took office, President Obama rescinded by executive order the “Mexico City policy,” which prevents foreign aid going to organizations that perform or promote abortions. No legislation passed, no debate, just an executive order.

But the website for Santorum's 2012 presidential campaign lists under the "Executive Orders, Rulemaking and other Executive Branch Actions" he would take if elected is "Reinstitute the Mexico City Policy to stop tax-payer funding or promotion of abortion overseas."

No mention of putting it to a debate.

In other words, Santorum is criticizing the very same behavior he vowed to engaged in if he was elected president. What a hypocrite.

Despite his utter hatred for President Obama, CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey couldn't keep President Obama from getting re-elected. So, to mark Obama's inauguration, Jeffrey has penned a trio of sour-grapes articles expressing his displeasure with the president by using cherry-picked statistics:

That last number is rather egregiously cherry-picked. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, long-term demographic trends are responsible for about half of the decline in labor force participation, which are factors out of Obama's control. Needless to say, Jeffrey makes no mention of this, though he does concede that about half of the decline he cites is due to an increase in retired workers collecting Social Security benefits.

Remember that Jeffrey isn't really all that interested in reporting the full truth; he just wants to destroy Obama.

Meanwhile, the Obama-hate at CNS is so pervasive that its employees can't (or won't) take any joy in the inauguration ceremony itself. Penny Starr pulled one of CNS' trademark word-count nitpicks to complain that the invocation didn't not mention God sufficiently to her liking.

His purpose is to keep the evil Republicans on the hot seat over their threat not to raise the debt ceiling and over revenue “fairness,” all the while claiming he’s pushing for a balanced approach, by which he means a completely unbalanced, one-sided approach that focuses on tax increases only, ignores spending cuts and entitlements and even includes new spending. If his ploy were to succeed, it would guarantee that America would go bankrupt, yet Obama is masquerading as the responsible one. It’s surreal, and I swear I wouldn’t believe it is occurring if I weren’t witnessing it with my own eyes.

Linking Obama with Hitler and Stalin will, indeed, win them over, provided they’re sufficiently stupid. It is thoroughly possible to be: a) the worst president in American history; b) a dreadful fraud and a liar; c) a deliberate saboteur of America’s well-being; d) a blood-drainer of America’s military capacity; e) a friend of America’s most dangerous enemies and an enemy of America’s most valuable ally in the Middle East; f) the kind of narcissist whose personal priorities could endanger American security … need I go on? It’s possible to be all those and many more and still fall far short of ranking up there with the two most murderous and evil dictators of the last century.

Some Americans are already calling for a “third term” for Obama. Others are calling for impeachment. I seek enlargement of the anti-Obama segment of the American population. I fear the Hitler-Stalin play will bring additional people to Obama’s side, people disgusted with Obama’s enemies’ willingness to jettison all sense of proportion.

A senior official of the Obama “administration” has gotten himself into hot water by telling Britain what to do. Obama’s view, apparently, is that it is in the interests of the United States that Britain should remain a mere satrapy or vassal state of the hated European tyranny-by-clerk, and should not think of leaving.

Far more dangerous and terrifying than Obama’s utter disregard for the Constitution is the abject treason of this president; this also remains largely unknown due to the mass media. While Americans have been encouraged to perceive Obama as just another president muddling through during a challenging period (apart from his historic First Black President status), it doesn’t take much digging to determine the direction in which he is taking us.

Throw in the testimony of proven, reliable sources some highly suspicious phenomena, and the situation becomes truly petrifying.

Now, some of you may say, “But wait, Obama knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s no buffoon.”

I both agree and disagree. Yes, the “progressive” dogma that courses through his veins – a mind-altering hallucinogen that gives liberals the munchies for power – is, indeed, inherently sinister.

Still, he believes it with every ounce of his nicotine-shriveled heart.

By deliberately deconstructing America’s constitutional republic – our free-market form of government – and replacing it with a Euro-socialist, moral relativist amalgam of his liking, this misguided anti-colonialist radical thinks – truly believes – that he’s doing the right thing.

So, just as occurred in 1776 with King George III, its time to legally remove the tyrant Obama from our body politic and cleanse the nation of his evil and destructive march to abolish our liberty and freedoms.

We may not as yet have found the best and final way to this end, but we must open our hearts and minds to our God, seek his guidance and press on. No one wants to see violence, so we must solemnly pray that we can achieve the tyrant Obama’s removal peacefully before it is too late.

One story is currently consuming the American media, and not just the sports media. That story, of course, is whether Notre Dame All-American linebacker Manti Te’o conspired to fabricate his seemingly tragic relationship with imaginary girlfriend Lennay Kekua or whether he is a victim of a cruel hoax.

Much is at stake – or so we are told. If Te’o proves to be a participant, NFL scouts will question his character and downgrade his stock in the upcoming NFL draft. For those who care, Deadspin has some excellent reporting on this story, better reporting in fact than anyone in the major media has done on that other Hawaiian fabricator of girl friends, President Barack Obama.

President Obama is hellbent on using his 23 executive orders not only to take away America’s guns, but he is deputizing all doctors to snitch on any of their patients who are gun owners. Obama’s progressive plan to eradicate the Second Amendment is systematic – first by registration, second by regulation, third by confiscation, and finally by mass extermination.

Still, Obama has more secrets than any would-be gun purchaser I have ever met in my life. Yet he has Secret Service protection. He obviously sees the value of armed defense or he would dispatch those agents tout suite. He obviously cares about the safety of his own children because they are provided with armed security, too. He just doesn’t think your kids should have any – even if his is provided courtesy of the taxpayers of the U.S. and yours is provided with your own money and time.

So, I say it’s time for Obama to submit to some public background checks.

How is it that with so many secrets regarding his life and identity, he has the cojones to demand background checks on Joe Q. Citizen, who simply wants to exercise his constitutional rights to protect his life, liberty and property?

The latest example comes in a Jan. 18 NewsBusters post approvingly quoting Rush Limbaugh's manufactured outrage that CBS host Bob Schieffer's comparison of "President Obama taking on the gun lobby to America defeating the Nazis in World War II" isn't the target of more outrage.

Of course, Schieffer didn't actually do that -- as the MRC itself transcribed it, Schieffer said a long list of things, including "defeating the Nazis," were "a much more formidable task than taking on the gun lobby."

But why quibble with facts when Sheppard has a political enemy to attack? He called Schieffer's statement an "absurd tirade." Well, Sheppard does know from absurd tirades, having defended the honor of Richard Nixon just a couple of weeks ago.

As far as media outrage of absurd tirades go: Where was Sheppard when his boss, Brent Bozell, called President Obama a "skinny ghetto crackhead"? To our knowledge, Sheppard is not on the record denouncing this vicious insult, even as he decries the lack of civility in political discourse.

Does the Media Research Center keep Sheppard employed despite regularly exhibiting such utterly blatant double standards, or because of them?